The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006


In 2006, California became the first state in the U.S. to create a legally binding program to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Also known as AB (Assembly Bill) 32, the Act left substantial discretion to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public Utilities Commission (CEC), and other state agencies.

One key issue to be decided by these agencies is whether to implement a market system for reducing emissions, such as a "cap and trade" program. In a cap and trade, the government sets a cap on emissions during a specified time period (such as a calendar year), and issues a new commodity called carbon permits, or "allowances," which give regulated entities (which, depending on implementation, would likely be companies, but could also be public entities or even individuals) the right to emit a specified amount (such as a ton) of carbon dioxide emissions (or their equivalent, as specified by the official published IPCC estimates of Global Warming Potential for the other greenhouse gases).

In the likely case that there is a cap and trade, the electricity sector would probably be the first industry to be subject to a rigorous cap. In this case, many companies stand to gain or lose depending on how the allowances are allocated. The allowances can be publicly auctioned, "grandfathered" on the basis of historical emissions, distributed according to some other criteria, or any combination of these methods. On June 22, the CEC held one of the first public meetings on this issue, which will surely be one of the most controversial aspects of AB 32, as at expected carbon prices, billions of dollars are at stake.

Who Wins

It depends on how allowances are distributed. If allowances are distributed on the basis of historical emissions, there would not likely be any initial serious financial impact on regulated utilities. However, if the allowances are distributed on the basis of some other factor, like demographics or total electricity sales, then Pacific Gas & Electric (PCG), and other utilities which already have relatively low carbon intensities (or emissions per unit of electricity output) -- stand to gain from the sales of excess allowances. (Unless the PUC forced PG&E to pass these savings on to its customers).

Who Loses

In contrast, in this case, or in the case of an auction, utilities like Southern California Edison (SCEDM) and San Diego Gas & Electric, which have much higher current emissions intensities, could lose substantially by being forced to buy expensive allowances from competitors or the state -- unless, again, the PUC allowed these costs to all be passed on to customers. However, even in that case, consumption of electricity would likely fall, making it more difficult for the utilities to recover their desired returns on existing assets. Furthermore, some of these assets include heavily polluting coal plants that may be forced to retire early (in contrast to PG&E, which owns little or no coal).

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki